14 January 2018 1:49 AM

Face it: sometimes those stale, male MPs are the best choice

This is Peter Hitchens' Mail On Sunday column

Does anyone really think a government is better because of the way it looks?

Anyone who actually believes this surely deserves exactly what he or she gets.

The Blair and Cameron governments, among the worst in living memory (and in my view longer than that), were crammed with youthful idiots who looked reasonably good on TV, and great fusses were made of the numbers of women MPs (regardless of whether they were any good).

Yet here we go again.

We have just had a reshuffle openly based on the fatuous idea that the way the Government looks is what matters.

The slogans never change.

Old-fashioned organisations are called ‘male, pale and stale’, even if they are headed by women and contain far more women and ethnic minority members than at any time in history.

Sometimes we are told that the Cabinet, or the fire brigade, or the police should ‘look like the people they serve’, or even that they should ‘look like Britain’.

In fact, this generally means that they should look like the population of London, now one of the great multicultural and multi- ethnic city-states of the world, but completely unlike most of the rest of the country.

Almost all media types and politicians live in London, so they don’t know this.

But I could not care less what they look like.

I care only whether they know what they are doing, have the necessary experience, can think, and possess competence and courage.

Does a member of an ethnic minority really want to be saved from a fire by a member of the same minority?

Does a woman threatened by a rapist insist on being rescued from her plight by a female officer?

You only have to ask the question to see that the whole idea is garbage.

The public, unlike our governing elite, are not obsessed by race and sex.

They are rightly interested only in the contents of the person’s character.

And so it is in politics.

I personally see no difference between politicians whose skins are coloured differently from each other.

I would regard it as bigotry to do so.

I think we shall have ceased to be a racially divided society only when we stop making a fuss about colour.

In fact, if we choose only on ability, that may sometimes mean that there are actually fewer ethnic minority politicians in the Government.

Sometimes, equally, it will mean that there are more.

Honesty and justice don’t always look as good as cynical window- dressing.

As for women in politics, they aren’t necessarily good for every member of the female sex.

Female politicos mostly represent a rather militant faction.

These are the lucky ones, garlanded with university degrees and professional qualifications.

For them, work outside the home is a positive pleasure.

But for millions of other women, work is just a hard, grinding necessity.

It takes them away from their children in their tenderest years.

It is forced on them by the rapid decline in real pay, which means that most households need two incomes to survive, when 40 years ago they could make do with one wage.

There’s a perfectly respectable case for saying that this pressure on young mothers to abandon their children should be reduced.

But who will make that case?

Not ambitious young female politicians who happily leave their children with costly nannies, so they can climb to the top.

They will be the last people interested in taking up this cause.

A stale, male MP would be far more likely to listen.

Then there is the stupid habit of giving politicians extra points because they went to a state ‘comprehensive’ school.

British state education is a twisting maze, in which success can be bought or wangled, and its best schools are often just as privileged as Eton in their own way.

And almost any successful person who went to a ‘comprehensive’ has benefited from some sort of a fiddle, involving costly houses, religious faith (feigned or real) or private tutors.

Those who have made it to the top after attending a truly bogstandard comp, chaotic classrooms, rampant bullying and all, are much to be praised, but very rare.

I’m amazed that so few people have connected the disastrous fall in Army recruiting with the closure of about half of the UK’s recruiting offices, and the outsourcing of recruitment to the all-purpose company Capita, which compels applicants to fight their way through the internet, a test of patience but not necessarily a test of a good soldier.

Capita has even claimed that recruiting drops when there isn’t a war on.

Is that actually true?

In any case, none of this excuses the new soppy advertising campaign which seems to be aimed at doing to the Army what years of liberal interference have done to the police.

They’ll be great at stamping out homophobia. Not so good at defending the country.

As Richard Kemp, a retired senior officer, says: ‘What is most important is that the Army is full of soldiers.’ Quite.

It is the Army’s job to kill the enemy and take ground.

It is not going to do this if it seeks out the kind of people who are not keen on such tasks.

Soldiers can be as sensitive as anyone else when they are not fighting, but they have to be exceptionally tough while they are fighting.

I am still not sure what to make of the BBC’s expensive drama McMafia.

So far, it strikes me as more anti-Israeli than anti-Russian, though the Czech government and police might also have grounds for complaint.

But like all crime thrillers which draw attention to mighty evils caused by the drug trade, it ignores the real Mr Big of this very nasty business.

For that Mr Big is actually made up of millions of heedless people in this country, in the USA, and throughout Europe.

These are the ones who buy and use drugs in the first place, pouring in the colossal amounts of cash which the gangs then fight over.

These individual buyers are in fact criminals.

Yet their crime is seldom if ever attacked on the BBC, either in its dramas or in its news and current affairs broadcasts.

It is well known that nobody at the BBC takes drugs, which makes its attitude hard to explain.

The police do not arrest users and the courts do not punish them. In fact we as a society make excuses for them.

The latest of these is a ridiculous report claiming that critical attitudes towards drug abusers are a form of ‘discrimination’.

The grandly-titled Global Commission on Drug Policy, a self-appointed assembly of has-beens and suckers, says that users of heroin – possession of which can in theory put you in prison for seven years – should be described as having a ‘disorder’.

It whines: ‘Public perception is that drug use, including problematic drug use, is a choice and that individuals choose not to control it, i.e. not to stop.’

Well, yes, that is what sensible people think.

Whose interests will it serve if this sort of common sense is stamped out?

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Posted by: Bill | 15 January 2018 at 03:05 PM
*The foundation stone of Political Correctness dogma is the notion that all races are of equal ability. *
The 'Big Plan',in my view is to make everyone equal. And then they (the docile masses who have been divided into pc groups) agree to the same things/ say the same things/listen to the same things/read the same things/ do the same things/act the same/and all get the same rewards i.e. minimum wage/education/housing/services for all. Anyone stepping above this would be given the " who do you think you are?" And although in today’s world the objectors are called racists, right wingers/left wingers/ UKippers/ Fascists/ misogynists/homophobes come the day they will all be known and dealt with as simply ‘traitors of the state’. Where have we heard this before?

*** "She may not have a degree qualification but is that really a requirement for parliament?" ***

As far as I am aware, she has NO qualifications at all. I may be mistaken on that, but can find no evidence that she has ever passed an exam in her life.

*** "What she does have is great life experience and she can bring that to the shadow cabinet. From pregnant teenager to a position in the shadow cabinet I think is inspiring." ***

That 'experience' was mostly in the vicinity of the bike sheds, by her own admission she was a disruptive and unpleasant pupil who became pregnant at 15, and I do not find her being in politics "inspiring". I find it quite sad that the Labour party has become taken over by a clique who reward ignorance with (would be) positions of control over education.

And no, that does not mean I support the Tories (or any other party) given that they are all infiltrated by the subjective-trumps-objective agenda, but you raised the point of Lauren and so some of us have responded.

Someone called Bill made this comment here: "If the context is scientific prowess, then the Jews win hands down - consider that Jews account for less than one per cent of the world's population, but have taken 95+% of the Nobel Prizes for Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Medicine, ever since Alfred Nobel endowed those prizes."

This is rubbish. For a start there is no Nobel Prize for Mathematics. Look at the lists of Nobel Laureates for Physics, Chemistry and Physiology or Medicine. They are dominated by non-Jewish men from Germany, Britain, the USA, Scandinavia, and Russia.

Jews, who lived or are living mainly in the aforementioned countries, certainly do out-punch their percentage of the world's population, but do not make up any more than about 10% of the Laureates. Probably less.

Anyhow, speaking of physiology and physiological decadence, Nietzsche wrote that depression and nihilism are the same phenomenon. Now look at the countries that are doing themselves in at the hands of the decadent liberals. The USA and UK in particular. The use of antidepressants, narcotics, alcohol and other drugs is very high indeed.

Maybe there is a Nobel prize in store for someone who sheds light on this.

UUJay, hear hear to you too. I feel very sorry for you as an obviously dedicated soldier. It must be hugely disappointing to see what is becoming of our armed forces. Is it not bad enough that you should even be mentioning the fact that should our own religion feature, there would be uproar and why shouldn't we have a supporting and visible Christian role behind our services? Surely that is how it should be? We continue to allow ourselves to be brow beaten by those in control, to force these things on us. And yet we are often told by those 'moderate' Muslims, that they don't know why we continue to pander to a minority belief, it's not they who push this on us. If they are to be believed it is a sad thing.

Thomas Knott suggests a referendum on the legalisation of drugs. I understand why you want this, so that the people of this county can have a 'voice' in this matter similar to the referendum over the EU. And it's tempting to want it on this issue and perhaps a whole raft of issues that we are otherwise denied a say in. As a conservative minded person, I too want a say in all sorts of things since we no longer have a party that broadly represents the conservative view. This is our biggest current problem and a disgrace. If we didn't have a press and media who mostly agree with the current lot in Westminster, much more would be made of this. But, we shouldn't take the short cut that a referendum offers, instead we need some proper politicians to stand for us and force a change from inside politics. Unfortunately though, we aren't getting these people since mostly politicians are 'careerists' now and the populations is constantly influenced by what it sees on TV and in the media so the support doesn't seem to be there in large enough numbers. Referendums only serve to tell government what the people want. They are not binding necessarily and in some ways we are lucky that support to leave the EU was large enough uthat they dare not defy us on this issue.

Peter Rhind
I was a married pregnant teenager in the early 70's. It's just my experience has shown me when my young were at comprehensive, the standards were slipping from when it was my old secondary school.
We seem to have a lot of hypocrisy about today. A sort of mob media rule. People rail at standards across the pond while resorting to similar language in the public eye.
S**thole for instance has never in my world been about race.
I've heard it used when a property has been entered by police who see dog excrement, dirty nappies, greasy pots an pans and all manner of rubbish where young hungry, neglected children may have to be removed.
It might be to describe an area where crime, prostitution, trafficking or antisocial behaviour is rife.
You see when I was a young married mum, I'd been brought up to believe in the 60's that there would be more choice for women.
We socialised our young toddlers up to school outside the home and they learnt everyday language and tasks and behaviour and respect and manners.
There are those who sneer at that and determine that all funds must go into nursery and more nursery.
One female MP, once said a good few years back ,"That women at home were a problem"
NO we weren't. As I'm in my 60's, I see the results of the young and mums, being rushed and with lack of time.
Of course it should be a choice, but I see that choice diminishing and female MP's determined to keep it that way.
I look at the debates and P.M.Q's and see mostly well dressed and suited professional attitudes. I'm afraid I turned over during the Withdrawal Bill debate the other day when a female with pink hair and a yellow jacket got up.
My hubby says I missed her doing a rap.
I see moves to alter standards in the Army and the now even more in the police with the training for dog handlers.
I don't want to see MP's talking as though they are soap characters.
I'd like to see aims for higher standards.
The media rail against one questionable lot of language and the person is gone and then another an actual MP, is only suspended for language against women, not sacked.
It's not only standards, it's the double standards of people we vote for or who are unelected but seem to wield the power over us, I'm not keen.

@David Taylor.I think avoiding casualties and not endangering lives is now the priority.No doubt the intelligence of potential enemies is keen to work out just how many casualties a British force in the field could take before it folds.

You clearly *have* misunderstood Mr Hitchens who is simply stating that, if promotion to government is decided on ability, then 'sometimes' there will be 'more' MPs from ethnic minorities of sufficient quality to be considered for government posts than at other times.

The use of the word 'more' (and the word sometimes') in this context is, I would venture to suggest, easily comprehensible to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the English language.

I am certainly not going to look up how many ethnic minority members of government there have been at any particular time and this is tangential to Mr Hitchens's point, the principle of which is remarkably simple and straightforward. He is not claiming that there has always been adequate ethnic minority representation in government, just that selection on ability will mean different representation of those minorities at different times.

David Taylor..."Why should Britain tremble , British service personnel taken prisoner , unlawfully , perhaps the destroyers had no ammo and the Helicopters were U/S , or perhaps the Government has no pride."

Yes, David, all of that and more - mainly: British sailors are no less canon fodder than our soldiers - and the Government's need to provoke public hatred for Iran at the time was well worth the lives of that seaboat crew in their eyes!

I really appreciate your post. I was going to quote the following words of Mr Hitchens from the Churchill thread because they were so true and edifying but I think I will write them here - you have shown his words somewhat in real:

”History is the memory of experience on which we base our future actions.”

I wasn’t being tongue-in-cheek. I think she is a good appointment. She may not have a degree qualification but is that really a requirement for parliament? What she does have is great life experience and she can bring that to the shadow cabinet. From pregnant teenager to a position in the shadow cabinet I think is inspiring.

As for the economic policy, she was only being honest. Labour’s policy will be radical and, yes, that carries some risk. She pointed out that many of Britain’s great advancements in the past happened because Labour was prepared to take risk. Take the National Health Service which was created after the war when the country was pretty much bust.

Carry on believing the young, well-groomed, well-spoken Conservative MP when he says the Conservatives can be trusted on the economy if you wish. I wont based on their recent record. Using tax payers’ money to intervene in and prop-up the property market has got to be one of the biggest scandals of our time.

Roy Robinson .
You are correct , I remember that event as well , I also remember the Foreign Secretary , Mrs Beckett , making a statement s in the House of Commons , I expected a thunderous speech warning the Iranians to release our personnel , or else .
The part that stuck in my mind was a passage about how disappointing it was to see British Sailors & Marines smoking ! give me strength !
Why should Britain tremble , British service personnel taken prisoner , unlawfully , perhaps the destroyers had no ammo and the Helicopters were U/S , or perhaps the Government has no pride .

The Naval Officers on the scene were obviously unaware of the precedent of clapping their telescopes to a blind eye on that day . " I really do not see the signal "

No Mr B, I did not misunderstand Mr Hitchens in the way you suggest. Let me put it another way. I would like to know the date of a Government where selection by ability (as opposed to positive discrimination) produced anything resembling a population average ethnic or gender balance, where the word ‘more’ would be appropriate in any normal sense. In fact Mr Hitchens also used the word ‘Sometimes’, which means more than once, so I would like at least two dates.

Peter Rhind 13th January 2018 at 3.00
I'm presuming you are tongue in cheek when you say, " So lets have extra points for those politicians who have attended non - selective state secondary school. We might just attract a new wave of talent into politics. Labour's Angela Rayner is a good start.- a real inspiration.
The same Angela Rayner who said Labour's policies on finances would be , " s**t or bust". As qouted or rather the bust bit in PMQ's.

This is off-topic, but I have just read a report of a pre-inquest court hearing, at which it was revealed that Khalid Masood, the man responsible for the Westminster Bridge attack on 22nd March 2017, was found to have taken anabolic steroids in the days and hours prior to the attack.

I recall that Mr Hitchens raised the possibility that he had done so, shortly after the attack, given that Masood had been a bodybuilder. I recall, also, that I cast doubt on this suggestion as Masood was past the age of competing and that photographs taken of him shortly after the incident, while he was being medically treated, suggested that he didn't look like much of a bodybuilder. I have not checked the threads, but that is the gist of what I remember.

I think that I might have been somewhat facetious and so I apologise to Mr Hitchens and concede that he was right and that I was wrong.

John Main | 14 January 2018 at 05:01 PM :
*** this week past, it was announced that the FA will be assigning minority quotas for applicants for future coaching roles. ***

Also have to wonder whether some degree of pre-emptive political correctness appeasement might have already affected (perhaps subconsciously) the decision about who to appoint as the new Wales football manager.

@Terry Parsons I am afraid the actual outcome will be no laughing matter.When I saw the recruitment ad my mind went back to the capture of British sailors by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in the dying days of the Gordon Brown regime.This happened while a fully armed British destroyer with its own helicopters looked on and did nothing.Presumably this was so as not to put the sailors at risk.Later the sailors were put on Iranian TV and forced to perform in violation of the Geneva Convention.Eventually Brown had to crawl to get them released.In that case instead of defending British interests the armed forces in effect were taken hostage.This is likely to happen again I would imagine.

The foundation stone of Political Correctness dogma is the notion that all races are of equal ability. Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers would have regarded this notion as ludicrous, self-evident rubbish.

Of course, we know better today. But wait. When our (great) grandfathers were running the show our country was the richest and most powerful on earth; today it is a bankrupt nonenity, of third-rate military capability.

With this in mind, should we not at least consider the possibility that our (great) grandfathers were right, and we are wrong?

The superiority of races depends to some extent on context. To take an extreme example, Kagalagadi Bushmen survive happily and indefinitely in an environment which would kill a White man - or a Black man - in 24 hours.

If the context is athletic prowess, then the Negroid races win hands down - consider the number of Black Olympic gold medallists, world boxing champions, champion footballers etc.

If the context is scientific prowess, then the Jews win hands down - consider that Jews account for less than one per cent of the world's population, but have taken 95+% of the Nobel Prizes for Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Medicine, ever since Alfred Nobel endowed those prizes.

I think there is one thing that contributors have been getting wrong on this post. The point about positive discrimination is that it really a process for changing the preconceptions of those applying for jobs or positions not those involved in the selection process. I recently had a conversation with a Cambridge University professor who stated that he wished more students from state schools would apply for places at the University. He said that too few apply because they do not believe they would have a chance of getting a place and feel they would not be happy at the University if selected. This is not good for anyone involved. As it happens, a majority of entrants are from state school but I think the point still stands that you need to make sure that people do not suffer an inferiority complex or loss of confidence due to their background, race, gender etc. If you can get a few ‘minorities’ positively selected, you might just turn a trickle of applicants into a flow. An increase in the total number of applicants can only benefit an institution. So let’s have extra points for those politicians who have attended non-selective state secondary schools. We might just attract a new wave of talent into politics. Labour’s Angela Rayner is a good start – a real inspiration.

Regarding the 'look' of current government, I suppose this is the result of years of dumbing down until we arrive at this situation whereby, we only care about the 'face' of the people in politics and how well they look on TV.
When you cast around at the many ways our services and institutions have bowed to the increasing noise of modern day demands, like women insisting on being involved in areas which really don't suit them, like firemen and soldiers ( now wishing to be at the front line of skirmishes) and the emasculating of the police from a 'force' to a 'service' a social one at that. And together with diminished education particularly our history, you are left with the way things look rather than how effective they are.
The shake up in Government seems to me to be a case of the worm turning. Mrs May, having settled in to her position as PM, presumably feels secure in making the sort of changes which she no doubt thinks will be popular with 'the people' especially as she is part of the urban bubble, cushioned from the real lives of the rest of the country and perhaps blinded to all but those in the bubble with her? They really do seem to be quite separate (you only have to recall Cameron's complete misunderstanding of the country when he won the election and was so surprised at the overwhelming result.) They have no idea in Westminster together with the press and media who are either blind to the rest of the country or don't care.

"I don't recall the 'more' part ever happening. Perhaps somebody will be kind enough to tell me when it was?"

You appear to misunderstand PH's comment. All he is saying (unless I have misinterpreted him) is that, if ministers are chosen on ability, then, on occasions, there will be more ministers from ethnic minorities than on others.

You seem to think that he is implying that appointment on the basis of ability means that ministers from ethnic minorities will sometimes outnumber those from the majority white population. It is perfectly clear, to me at least, that he is suggesting no such thing.

Much is said by many about the demise of common sense in this nation.
Many causes are laid out in blame from Liberals to lefties and righties: Muslims, Christians and athiests: remainers and brexiteers: drugies: gays, feminists and trannies, and, not to forget, of course the elites and their all-powerful PC.
This is as it always has been for all time - for where there is a vacuum there is a rushing, gushing whirlwind of self-destructive wickedness ever waiting in the wings to take its place.
And the vacuum is a nation's Godlessness.

As you say, Mr Hitchens, liberal interference is doing to the Army what it has already done to the police force (sorry, service). In both cases, top officers, when interviewed, often sound more like damp politicians than representatives of their professions.

The British Brigadiers (PC Division)

(Apologies to Anon)

Some talk of Alexander and some of Hercules;
Of Hector and Lysander, but let’s not dwell on these,
For of all the world’s brave heroes, there’s none that can compare
With the toe-toe-toe-toe-toe the line of a PC Brigadier.

He or she accepts that soldiers may sometimes have to fight,
But there are other matters – stuff that needs to be put right,
And any new recruiting drive must be designed to please
And attract more folk with darker skins and of course LGBTs

Now a soldier should be sensible and also fairly fit,
“Be The Best,” though sounds elitist, you really must admit,
And like that youth’s “Excelsior!” it seems a strange device;
We’d be inclined to opt for “Please Do Try To Be Nice.”

The playing fields of Eton may have helped win Waterloo,
But we might well have been beaten without the Prussians too.
Diversity’s what won it! So give three hearty cheers
For the toe-toe-toe-toe-toe the line of our PC Brigadiers!

Lots of the usual comments on the 'madness' of "equality and diversity' and observations on its effects but none on the basis of its premises as a foundation principle , Why do intelligent people and it seems to me a large proportion of the populace think that equality is the rule in life rather than the exception .

Mr Hitchens: ‘In fact, if we choose only on ability, that may sometimes mean that there are actually fewer ethnic minority politicians in the Government. Sometimes, equally, it will mean that there are more.’

I don’t recall the ‘more’ part ever happening. Perhaps somebody will be kind enough to tell me when it was?

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.